EPTStudent gets ostracized for refusing to pray - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AJMcSpiffy
United States1154 Posts
| ||
|
maliceee
United States634 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:19 IntoTheWow wrote: Friends? You mean those people that made his life impossible for the past week? It said people who showed support for him were hounded too...It's naive to think he told no one. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote: yea, except you've got people like me who aren't even religious and aren't bothered by it at all there are no prayers for me, therefore I should never be forced to listen to anyones prayers or it's wrong and destroying my freedom right? is that how it works rofl It comes down to personal views, you could care less but you can't say that someone might be offended by it. Also I don't think the article said he was offended more like he was pointing out something illegal, he could have been doing it basically from a following the law standpoint and them doing what is right by that law. Edit: Long post sermokala but you didn't answer my post in your response to people and simply rehashed the same wiki on radiocarbon dating, when it really doesn't prove you point at all. Also no one uses radiocarbon dates for things they shouldn't IE things too old to date. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
The reaction from the rest of the town is typically retarded as well. People really just suck sometimes, everyone involved in this sound like complete idiots. | ||
GTR
51444 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:26 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Prayer is distressing? Just dont pray and let the people who want to pray, pray? The reaction from the rest of the town is typically retarded as well. People really just suck sometimes, everyone involved in this sound like complete idiots. thats america for you?! | ||
|
Emperor_Earth
United States824 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote: sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crime if there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait I would argue that it's not a victimless crime. You're just not probing deep enough. I have heard many similar arguments in different circles regarding seatbelt nonusage being a victimless crime because people don't [want to] take another minute to think it through. In our case, there's the obvious. An atheist feeling out of place in his own graduation. While obviously a very minor transgressions in terms of immediate damage, should we allow school-sponsored proethnic speeches at your graduation? How about a pro-Aryan speech? A pro-Aryan anti-every other race speech? Once you go pro-ethnic, aren't you by its very definition arguing anti-nonethnic? Where do you draw the line? Re: Seatbelt usage If car insurance is a legally-required shared cost, then I should hope we all aim to deescalate our injuries by use of safety belts in cars. Sure your $1k* extra vehicle repair bill State Farm eats because your head smashed through your windshield might not seem like a lot given how many traffic accidents occur daily, but multiply if by say 30%* who don't use seat belts and my insurance premiums go up $50/month*. No thanks. * = made up # for demonstrative purposes Oh... and as long as you're not driving... or worse riding a motorcyle while scratching your head with both hands, we're cool  | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32274 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:26 maliceee wrote: It said people who showed support for him were hounded too...It's naive to think he told no one. I think it's naive to think the school (that acted in such a childish way) didn't leak his name. | ||
|
krbz
United States66 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote: What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. | ||
|
Co-lol-sus
Bulgaria141 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:26 Slaughter wrote: It comes down to personal views, you could care less but you can't say that someone might be offended by it. Also I don't think the article said he was offended more like he was pointing out something illegal, he could have been doing it basically from a following the law standpoint and them doing what is right by that law. I just want to know how anyone could be offended by that "I don't actually believe in what the majority believe in, therefore I shouldn't have to listen to them publicly pray, even for one minute, because it infringes upon my liberties and offends me to hear something I don't agree with" is that the argument? | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5579 Posts
The area is probably already populated by Christian sects. Christianity doesn't need any extra help recruiting people by being present in a public institution. The point about Buddhist or Muslim worship is pretty much the easiest way to explain this to someone who doesn't get it. Suppose you were a Christian and your high school was mostly Muslim. You point out that the graduation shouldn't include any Muslim prayers because there are some people who don't follow Islam there, and over time they might get absorbed into a religion they didn't ever want to be a part of. People found out what you said and laughed at you and sent you death threats. Now pretend Islam was actually Christianity, and this took place in Louisiana. Basically, only secularism can preserve tolerance. | ||
|
Gecko
United States519 Posts
| ||
|
aguy38
131 Posts
I can't help but feel that it should have been "THAT'S AMERICA FOR YOU, BITCH!" We do tend to get a little too worked up about these stupid things, but hey if you can't get worked up over the stupid things what can you get worked up over? Especially since you have to solve the important ones....eventually. edit:love you Jinro you are so gosu | ||
|
atheistaphobe
22 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote: What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Let me help you out. God exists. Its my word against the atheists. God can show the atheist that he exists, but the atheist can never show me that God does not exist. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I just want to know how anyone could be offended by that "I don't actually believe in what the majority believe in, therefore I shouldn't have to listen to them publicly pray, even for one minute, because it infringes upon my liberties and offends me to hear something I don't agree with" is that the argument? I don't know I wouldn't have cared either, like I said maybe he was not doing it from being offended but from a Rights/Constitution viewpoint or like some have suggested he was trolling/attention seeking/just wanting to cause a ruckus. No one knows what he was thinking when he did it and we will never know. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On May 27 2011 13:39 aguy38 wrote: He didn't have to pray. He could have just sat there. If you read the second line of the article it makes it sound like he said the majority should be stopped on account of him. Did they overreact to him? Hell yea they did, but at some point he should have had the common sense to just not say anything. This is the truth. The article is biased to the point of absurdity. It's pretty ridiculous. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:20 TheLink wrote: Ok, I'll ignore the schools response as that is slightly more convoluted and I can make just as good an argument with the parents. Why do we hate the parents when what they did is legal? Because they are morally wrong, and I think Fowler was morally wrong to destroy an illegal practice. I'm actually kinda agnostic on this one (no pun intended). I agree that breaking the law isn't a good enough reason to stop the practice. But in retrospect this looks like a toxic and intolerant community and the kid did everyone a service by pointing it out. So maybe the kid was a bit of an asshole but the community's response proved that they are far worse and more dangerous. | ||
|
Emperor_Earth
United States824 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:16 revy wrote: The reason this is a big deal in America is because it has been a guiding principle since the start of the country. Many early settlers of America were people fleeing England to avoid religious prosecution for not following the church of England. Thus, when the bill of rights passed there was included a line that congress was not to pass a law setting up a state religion nor prevent the practice of a religion. In effect it is interpreted as though the state (public schools being an officer of the state) cannot lead prayer inside the class or during school events. The school cannot stop students from praying, and could for instance leave a moment of silence for people to pray, but it cannot lead the students in prayer. Had this incident occurred at a private school the kid wouldn't have a leg to stand on as a private school is not the state. I have always thought this to be a source of amusement because the general knowledge on this matter is quite often a misunderstood perspective. The original settlers (Puritans) of the Bay Area in 'Chusetts definitely left because of religious persecution. But they certainly weren't "forward-thinking" or "liberal". No, our founders' ancestors were the most mouth-foaming extreme-right conservatives you could imagine. Remember, England was considered the conservative stepchild of Europe at the time... and these Puritans were so extreme religiously and conservative lifestyle wise that the powers that be in England had enough of them... So they kicked them off to a new World and ... well... here we are. Greatest country EVAR!!@# | ||
|
maliceee
United States634 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:28 IntoTheWow wrote: I think it's naive to think the school (that acted in such a childish way) didn't leak his name. The school might have leaked it, yes, but to think he did this for completely selfless reasons is pretty optimistic. To think he only, ONLY told the principal about what he planned to do is naive. Could it be because you share his views maybe? It's funny listening to both sides rationalize their sides' position when both are stupid. What kind of way to go about it for this kid, threatening the principal with calling the NAACP if he didn't listen to him. | ||
| ||
